Letters

October 19, 20023:19 AM CST

Taft-Hartley

I sent this to you-know-who with no chance that they will print it.

To The Editor of The New York Times:

The Taft-Hartley act was enacted in 1947 as a series of amendments to the New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which established a democratic process for union certification and collective bargaining in the United States. The act represented a resounding victory for pro-business conservative forces at the time in the restrictions it placed on the right to strike and its infamous clause 14B, which gave states the right to restrict union shops through so-called state “right to work laws.” However, its provisions giving the president the right to declare a national emergency and end strikes have been used very sparingly and never in a maneuver to support tactically an employer’s lockout.

That the President has stacked his “Board of Inquiry” with Southerners, Republicans, and conservatives adds insult to injury to all trade unionists and and non-conservatives in the country.

The events of Sept. 11, have obscured for many the fact that George W. Bush is the first president since Benjamin Harrison in 1889 to run second in the popular vote. For an administration with absolutely no electoral mandate, Bush has both pursued the policies of Ronald Reagan and has treated his opposition as if he were Ronald Reagan. The only answer trade unionists and non-conservative voters can give to this brazen attack on labor’s rights is to defeat the Republican Party decisively in the elections and deter the administration from its aggressive and destructive policies at home and abroad.

Norman Markowitzvia e-mail

Thanks for a vote against war

I sent the following letter to the two Philadelphia Congressmen who voted no to war:

To Congressmen Brady and Fattah,

My most heartfelt thanks for your courageous vote for peace. I am aware of the terrible pressure by the White House and the Republican Party to swing the vote that gives the president the right to wage war.

It is indeed unfortunate that not enough members of Congress people had the stamina to stand up and be counted as you did.

In the face of this onslaught you have won the deepest respect of your constituents. History will record that yours were the hands that helped stay the course of all out war. This fight has not yet been concluded. Your act of courage inspires us to greater efforts. The people of the U.S. will have the final say.

Frances GabowPhiladelphia PA

Law’s fault, not Green Party

Your Oct. 5 issue again criticizes the Green Party for running a candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota. The Green Party of Minnesota is required by Minnesota law to nominate by primary. The party itself cannot prevent any voter in the state from paying a filing fee and getting on the Green Party primary ballot for any partisan office in the state.

In my opinion, state laws should not require minor parties to nominate by primary, precisely because it leaves them no freedom to determine whether or not to run a candidate. The law is to blame, not the Green Party.

On Sunday, Oct. 6, people gathered here to call for peace. Senator and 2000 vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, invited to introduce the Democratic candidate for governor to a large group of African-American clergy, had to pass a picket line of sign-holding, anti-Iraq war demonstrators as he entered the church where the event was taking place.

Lieberman, one of Congress’ most vocal hawks supporting a first strike attack on Iraq, has long avoided talking to any members of the peace community.

Some of the picket signs read “Curry Yes, Lieberman-Bush War on Iraq No.” Bill Curry is the candidate running for governor. The picket was organized by the Greater New Haven Peace Council.

A ReaderNew Haven CT

Comments

comments

Take control of the means of news production. Become a People's World sustainer today.